Allegations Don't Indicate That Prosecutrix Engaged In Sexual Relationship Due To False Promise: SC Upholds Quashing Of Rape Case
The Supreme Court upheld quashing of a rape case against man observing that the allegations made by prosecutrix does not indicate that the marriage promise was false or that the complainant engaged in the sexual relationship on the basis of such false promise.
The Court said that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The aforesaid appeal challenged the order of the Karnataka High Court by which it allowed the petition of the accused and quashed the criminal proceedings.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Rajesh Bindal, and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “No doubt, that the power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases, it is also equally settled that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. However, in the present case, even if the allegations made in the FIR and the material on which the prosecution relies, are taken at its face value, we find that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.”
Advocate Naman Dwivedi appeared on behalf of the appellant while Advocate Yogesh Kanna appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, in the year 2016, while the appellant/complainant was still a minor, the accused after becoming acquainted with her, made her fall in love with him. Thereafter, they entered into a relationship and were intimate with each other and subsequently in 2019, the accused took her to his aunty’s house and had sexual intercourse with her after leading her to believe that he would marry her. Then he took her to his house to introduce her to his parents and in his family’s absence, forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions. As a consequence, the complainant became pregnant and upon gaining knowledge of the same, the accused and his brother (co-accused) forcibly took her to a nursing home and compelled her to undergo an abortion.
The accused threatened the complainant if she disclosed any information to her parents. In 2020, when the complainant’s parents became aware of her relationship with the accused and the termination of her pregnancy, she along with her parents visited his house with the request that she and accused be married to each other. However, the accused persons (family) turned down the request asserting that the complainant was a prostitute belonging to the Scheduled Caste. Hence, an FIR was lodged against the accused and his family members for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The Trial Court initiated criminal proceedings against the accused persons but then the High Court quashed the same. Hence, the matter was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts noted, “She stated, instead, that accused No. 1 upon gaining knowledge of her pregnancy, had informed her that he would like to continue with his studies and had thereafter brought her Ayurvedic medicine which would cause the termination of her pregnancy. Upon the said medicine being administered to the complainant/appellant by accused No.1, her pregnancy was terminated. The complainant/appellant requested that the restatement be made a part of her original complaint. Accordingly, the relevant alteration was made in the original complaint, which fact is reflected in the brief summary of the case contained in the charge-sheet, subsequently filed.”
The Court said that no error has been committed by the Single Judge of the High Court by holding that permitting further proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
It concluded that the High Court correctly applied the law on the issue and came to a just finding warranting no interference.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title- Ms. X v. Mr. A and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 216)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Naman Dwivedi, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Vishnu Unnikrishnan, C Kranthi Kumar, and Danish Saifi.
Respondents: Advocate M Yogesh Kanna, AOR Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Advocates S. Sabari Bala Pandian, Vasu Kalra, and Monica Saini.
